Monday, May 15, 2017

Tanya Alfred draws our attention to the world-threatening problem of climate change — which more than 97 per cent of climate scientists agree on’ — and bemoans the lack of a strategy from the English Cricket Board (ECB) for how cricket is organised today and its lack of preparation for the future.
In 2016, for instance, the Indian Premier League was forced to relocate matches from Maharashtra because of a water shortage. Bangladesh is threatened by extreme river floods, rising sea levels and high temperatures.
Zimbabwe has uncertain precipitation patterns, as does the southern part of Australia, while England is predicted to get more rainfall.

Does MLB have a climate-change contingency plan? I am sure Rob Manfred would consider it.

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Who generally writes the headlines for regular news stories? I ask only because in the not-that-recent past the Washington Post had an incredibly annoying habit of using the lamest puns in the world in its headlines about half a dozen times or more every day, in all four of their main sections. It got to the point where two different ombudsmen (one a woman) were mocking it on a regular basis, and finally they gradually gave it up, shortly after some particularly clueless writer composed a pun headline about an article on the Holocaust.

I've mentioned before that a former colleague of mine in Little Rock wound up going to the NYTimes about 20 years ago on the strength of his strong headline-writing skills. He was laid off a year or so ago, unfortunately.

Interesting, though the Times headlines have had a sort of institutional look to them for a lot longer than 20 years, and don't seem to be all that different today. Most of their headlines are fairly bland,** but once in a while they come up with one that's distinctive not so much for its wit (that's hard to pull off well unless you're a tabloid) but for its personality. One of my favorite examples was from the early 2000's, when sometime in late October or early November the previously toothless Monsters of the Midway somehow pulled off a miracle finish to steal a game and found themselves tied for the NFC North lead. This was the Times headline:

Look Who's Tied For First Place---
It's Those Sly Old Chicago Bears

It was such a perfect combination of appreciation and depreciation that it's stuck with me ever since. And it sure beats those lameass puns.

** With liberal use of words like "roiled", which by this time I think they must have copyrighted.

A headline convention (not that I ever encountered it till I'd been in the biz well over a decade; it was written by an old-timer from the Northeast) that I despise is the reference to "slay trial." There's no such thing as a goddamned slay trial. You're on trial for murder, dammit; "slay" is a verb.

You can't just wave your hands and say "obstruction of justice." That's what hacks like Nicholas Kristof do. You have to make the case.

What's the case, potentially?

DONALD TRUMP: Oh I was gonna fire regardless of recommendation-LESTER HOLT: So there was-- [OVER TALK]
DONALD TRUMP: He made-- he made a recommendation, he's highly
respected, very good guy, very smart guy, uh the Democrats like him, the
Republicans like him, uh he made a recommendation but regardless of
recommendation I was going to fire Comey knowing, there was no good time
to do it. And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said you
know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it's an
excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have
won. And the reason they should have won it is the electoral college is
almost impossible for a Republican to win. Very hard. Because you start off at
such a disadvantage. So everybody was thinking, they should have won the
election. This was an excuse for having lost an election.

And...

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!
7:26 AM - 12 May 2017
23,511 23,511 Retweets 71,012 71,012 likes

But like I said last thread...

This is a fascinating example of one of the more well-known metaphors of quantrump mechanics...

It's known as Schroetrumpinger's cat (or #####, if you like) -- it's where the Trumpkin exists in a bubble that is impermeable to things Trump actually says or tweets. This allows the Trumpkin to be both wrong and full of #### at the same time.

I saw some kids playing cricket on the local softball field on Saturday. Actually had a full on game going, with two wickets and batsmen

We now have a dedicated intramural cricket pitch at UT-Arlington (well above the flood plain :) But it still seems more popular to set up a makeshift wicket in a parking lot and play with a tennis ball. There is something global about the appeal of improvised stickball games

Of course Ray's answer to that is that Lawrence Tribe is just another hack. You're never going to win an argument with Ray.

I'm not trying to win an argument with Ray. He asked for the case. I showed it to him. I know as well as anyone that he will spin out of it or simply ignore it, because what he means isn't "what's the argument for this," but "what's the argument that I, Ray-Ray, will agree with, huh?!" Which, as we all know, doesn't exist.

Tribe and Lathwick present the summary argument for why firing Comey was itself obstruction, and thus impeachable. (Of course, the GOP House doesn't give a #### about obstruction unless a Democrat is President, and there will be no impeachment proceedings without those guys being booted from control of the House.)

A headline convention (not that I ever encountered it till I'd been in the biz well over a decade; it was written by an old-timer from the Northeast) that I despise is the reference to "slay trial." There's no such thing as a goddamned slay trial. You're on trial for murder, dammit; "slay" is a verb.

Was that in a tabloid? I've always had the sense that tabloids have an entirely different set of rules for headlines than broadsheets.

Another word that I used to see all the time in North Carolina newspaper headlines that I've never seen around DC or northward is "solon", meaning a congressman or state legislator. I imagine that there were similar regional quirks like that throughout the country. And for that matter, how often do you see "Yanks" instead of "Yankees" outside of the NYC region?

Speaking of that last note, the other day I was looking up the famous Polo Grounds Opening Day riot of 1907, when the Giants had to forfeit to the Phillies because the New York police had refused to provide security at any more sporting events, and the crowd stormed the field after the 8th inning. But to the point, the adjacent column's headline had 'Yankees' in it (and in quotes). Up to now, at least, that's the earliest spotting I've ever seen of "Yankees" in a newspaper headline.

You can't just wave your hands and say "obstruction of justice." That's what hacks like Nicholas Kristof do. You have to make the case.

No; I'm not a prosecutor (and neither is Kristoff), so I don't. It's kind of like how you declared Hillary Clinton guilty without actually acknowledging -- let alone analyzing -- the caselaw interpreting and narrowing the statutory provision in question. Kristof didn't advocate that Trump be arrested, so he really doesn't have to make any case.

There are thousands of federal offenses, many overlapping. I'd probably start with 18 USC § 1512(b):

Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

By the way, Julian Sanchez explains why a narrow focus on "collusion" between Trump and Putin during the campaign is misplaced. RTWT, but:

There are two main reasons I doubt we’re going to get any smoking gun proof of secret coordination between Russia and Trump’s campaign. The first is simply that, even if it had happened, there’s no reason to expect that unambiguous evidence of it would necessarily be available to the FBI. Collusion, after all, is ultimately a question of the conversations people had—and in this case you’d expect that at least on the Russian side there would be an acute understanding of the need to keep those conversations secret. If those conversations were conducted in person, there’s no real way to retroactively prove what was said unless one of the participants confess. If they were telephone conversations, the same applies unless one of the parties happened to be under electronic surveillance at the time (and using an actively monitored communications facility). Absent that, you might be able to show a suspicious volume of contacts, but on the critical question of what was said, you’d be out of luck. Conspiracy is just inherently a hard thing to prove unless one of the conspirators flips or is dim enough to leave a paper trail.

That’s actually secondary, however. The primary reason I doubt we’re going to see that smoking gun is that it’s hard to see why it would be in Russia’s interest to loop the Trump campaign in on their interference campaign. The risks would be significant, and the benefits hard to discern. As Lawfare observed last month, there is ample evidence of collusion and coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia—it’s just that all of it took place right out in the open. Russia’s efforts on Trump’s behalf were, for the most part, pretty open, even if Trump affected not to notice them. Trump’s praise of Vladimir Putin—grounded in an affection that long predates his political career—was public, as was his gleeful exploitation of the fruits of hacks against his opponents and encouragement of more of the same, as was his attempt to exculpate Russia long after the intelligence community had reached consensus about their responsibility, as was his use on the campaign trail of stories pushed out by Russian state media. Trump could see they were helping him, they could see he appreciated it and was reciprocating. What, exactly, would have been the marginal benefit of some further secret communication making this happy symbiosis a matter of explicit agreement? Collusion would have been redundant.

This may be corrupt, and impeachmentworthy, but it isn't necessarily criminal. (I just want to edit my post to emphasize this point: Congress does not need -- despite Ray's desperate attempts to claim otherwise -- to establish the elements of a specific statutory offense in order to impeach.)

Probably the best counterargument to this line of reasoning is that Trump continues to behave for all the world like a man desperate to hide something. But that could be any number of things other than direct and explicit conspiracy with self-identified Russian intelligence operatives. I won’t indulge in lengthy speculation about the range of possibilities here, but if the FBI is spending months turning over rocks, scrutinizing the personal and financial ties between Trump or his associates and Russian officials or businesses, there’s a pretty good chance of bumping into any adjacent unseemly or unlawful conduct in the process, even if they come up empty on a conspiracy to affect the outcome of the election.

A headline convention (not that I ever encountered it till I'd been in the biz well over a decade; it was written by an old-timer from the Northeast) that I despise is the reference to "slay trial." There's no such thing as a goddamned slay trial. You're on trial for murder, dammit; "slay" is a verb.

Was that in a tabloid? I've always had the sense that tabloids have an entirely different set of rules for headlines than broadsheets.

Afraid not. We were as broad a sheet as ever broadsheeted.

Another word that I used to see all the time in North Carolina newspaper headlines that I've never seen around DC or northward is "solon", meaning a congressman or state legislator. I imagine that there were similar regional quirks like that throughout the country. And for that matter, how often do you see "Yanks" instead of "Yankees" outside of the NYC region?

The old Arkansas Gazette (bought by Gannett in '86 & run into the ground within 5 years, at which point my paper at the time bought its name & assets) had some remarkable bits of house style, promulgated by their longtime editor J.N. Heiskell, who worked till his death at 100. "Gas" was always printed in quotes when referring to gasoline. An interval without rain was a drouth, not a drought. Most infamously, because Heiskell had hated Sen. Joe T. Robinson, even decades after the latter's death the downtown auditorium named for him was simply "the Auditorium." There was a Joe T. Robinson High School, too, but I have no memory of its being referred to as just "the High School."

Probably the best counterargument to this line of reasoning is that Trump continues to behave for all the world like a man desperate to hide something.

This is true, but with Trump, the odds of it being a rational move to hide incriminating facts rather than Trump being a paranoid nut bag lunatic are even at best. It's hard to discern where Trump is being corrupt vs Trump being your crazy conspiracy nut uncle at Thanksgiving.

I saw some kids playing cricket on the local softball field on Saturday. Actually had a full on game going, with two wickets and batsmen.

There are two cricket leagues (the American Cricket Conference and the Midwest Cricket Conference) that play in Chicago in the big park west of Hyde Park, Washington Park. I've learned the rules from watching games there -- my experience is that cricketers are the friendliest people in the world, who want nothing more than to talk to complete strangers about what exactly is happening on the field.

The surest sign of spring is taking the 55 bus through Washington Park and seeing a few dozen people in their cricketing whites spread all over the big north fields.

Probably the best counterargument to this line of reasoning is that Trump continues to behave for all the world like a man desperate to hide something. But that could be any number of things other than direct and explicit conspiracy with self-identified Russian intelligence operatives. I won’t indulge in lengthy speculation about the range of possibilities here, but if the FBI is spending months turning over rocks, scrutinizing the personal and financial ties between Trump or his associates and Russian officials or businesses, there’s a pretty good chance of bumping into any adjacent unseemly or unlawful conduct in the process, even if they come up empty on a conspiracy to affect the outcome of the election.

Like Bill Clinton and Whitewater. What eventually came out of an investigation over a land development scandal was impeachment for alleged perjury about sex with a white house intern.

The primary reason I doubt we’re going to see that smoking gun is that it’s hard to see why it would be in Russia’s interest to loop the Trump campaign in on their interference campaign.

This sort of assumes that all Russia wanted was Trump to win because they figured he'd take a softer line with them than Clinton would have. It's true, and certainly to their benefit, but given how many people in Trump's campaing have turned out to be compromised by the Russians, there's no particular reason to believe that's all they were trying to get. Other things (like, e.g., the softening of language in the GOP platform to remove the commitment to provide Ukraine with weapons) may well require more direct conversations - they're not intrinsically mutually beneficial.

I've learned the rules from watching games there -- my experience is that cricketers are the friendliest people in the world, who want nothing more than to talk to complete strangers about what exactly is happening on the field.

I found that was extremely helpful for me as well. I had never really understood what these people were trying to do out there...but I watched a test match (or rather part of a test match) with some cricket fans and within a few minutes everything became clear!

I actually had fun in the reversed roles too. There's some tremendous about talking an enthusiastic baseball learner through his first game. Kind of reminds you why you love the game so much to begin with.

97% of climate scientists DO NOT agree on global warming/climate change. That is a Big Lie.

Among climatologists and earth scientists the actual numbers are VASTLY different.

"However, there is no consensus approaching 97 percent. A vigorous, vocal minority exists. The science is far from settled."

"According to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know."

I know a lot of climatologists and earth scientists. Only ONE of them believes that human beings are the primary cause of climate change. It's that big yellow ball in the sky, kids. Wise up, you're being scammed for profit.

Another word that I used to see all the time in North Carolina newspaper headlines that I've never seen around DC or northward is "solon", meaning a congressman or state legislator. I imagine that there were similar regional quirks like that throughout the country. And for that matter, how often do you see "Yanks" instead of "Yankees" outside of the NYC region?

The old Arkansas Gazette (bought by Gannett in '86 & run into the ground within 5 years, at which point my paper at the time bought its name & assets) had some remarkable bits of house style, promulgated by their longtime editor J.N. Heiskell, who worked till his death at 100. "Gas" was always printed in quotes when referring to gasoline.

The Times also put 'gas' in quotes for many decades, and in truth I'm not even sure whether or not they still might.

An interval without rain was a drouth, not a drought. Most infamously, because Heiskell had hated Sen. Joe T. Robinson, even decades after the latter's death the downtown auditorium named for him was simply "the Auditorium." There was a Joe T. Robinson High School, too, but I have no memory of its being referred to as just "the High School."

And many newspapers around the country refuse to refer to the Washington Redskins by their actual team name. In a similar vein, you never hear any native Washingtonian refer to Reagan National Airport as anything other than "National", and in Baltimore you also never hear Thurgood Marshall's name along with "BWI", although it's also part of the formal name.

One byproduct of the USAToday-style formatting of today's papers is the shortening of headlines. I can't say that I follow newspapers around the country with any great consistency, but other than the Times, I can't think of a single other paper that regularly uses compound sentences for headlines, such as "Macron Is Inaugurated as France's President, and He's Not Wasting Any Time". Do you know of any others?

my experience is that cricketers are the friendliest people in the world, who want nothing more than to talk to complete strangers about what exactly is happening on the field.

I can confirm this.

At my current contract position (but at a different location), I was looking up Indian Premiere League scores (T20) online during my lunch. I had caught a couple of matches on TV late at night and I wanted to see the final results (as I had to get some sleep before they were done). I knew most of the rules, but the box score/statistics were a bit hard to parse.

One of the other contractors (from Pakistan) saw that and immediately asked me if I watched. When I said I had a passing interest, another two contractors (from India) came by and they all tried to explain everything on the screen for me. They were so happy that a local Canadian guy had shown interest in the IPL/cricket, that they went out of their way to send me links to highlight packages on YouTube, guides to following the IPL, and writeups about the teams.

Sadly, a couple of them had to leave after their contracts were up, and I moved on to a satellite office an hour away, so the cricket talk has died down.

According to a study of 1,868 scientists working in climate-related fields, conducted just this year by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, three in ten respondents said that less than half of global warming since 1951 could be attributed to human activity, or that they did not know."

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Without knowing how that 30% minority breaks down between "less than half" and "don't know", one cannot make any kind of argument what it means. It could be 29% for less than half, and 1% for I don't know, and that means something quite different from 15% less than half and 15% don't know. So, try to do better. The sun is shining, thus it's hot today is a kindergarten argument. Or a Republican Congressman's. Take your pick.

At my current contract position (but at a different location), I was looking up Indian Premiere League scores (T20) online during my lunch.

When I used to live in London, my flatmate was cricket mad. He even took me to watch a match at Lord's. I have to say it was okay live at the grounds, but that involved a lot of eating and drinking. He used to watch the 5 day tests, which was like watching paint dry. At least the IPL plays a quicker game.

"A lot" - unless you're a climatologist, or a secretary in an Earth sciences department, this is exceedingly unlikely. I mean, I meet a lot of people who do climate modelling (mostly for HD189773b, 209458b, GJ1214b, & similar phone numbers - but Solar system planets apart from Mercury, sure).

The real rate is probably closer to 99.9% than 99% - after Exxon and the Koch Brothers send a convey of dumptrucks full of money up to Willie Soon's office, they don't need a second shill. Comparable to the number of physicists, who, say, believe in the conservation of energy.

But it's certainly true that if there were no Sun, global warming wouldn't be a problem. The heat flux from the Earth's interior is pretty small.

When I used to live in London, my flatmate was cricket mad. He even took me to watch a match at Lord's. I have to say it was okay live at the grounds, but that involved a lot of eating and drinking. He used to watch the 5 day tests, which was like watching paint dry. At least the IPL plays a quicker game.

The only live cricket I've seen is Twenty-Twenty, which works out to be a bit like a baseball game in terms of time and action. I can enjoy watching a Test Match, ideally at a pub where you're watching it while socializing. And only watching part of the whole match. Sitting in the stands for 28 hours over a long-weekend would not work for me.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Without knowing how that 30% minority breaks down between "less than half" and "don't know", one cannot make any kind of argument what it means. It could be 29% for less than half, and 1% for I don't know, and that means something quite different from 15% less than half and 15% don't know.

Or, read the Dutch study - and discover that the consensus is very high among people who actually do climate science, but not so high among the earth scientists who don't really work on climate. The article is open access. If CC actually knows "a lot" of climate scientists who don't think human activity is the dominant driver of global warming, he works at the Creation Science Institute or Exxon-Mobile.

The only live cricket I've seen is Twenty-Twenty, which works out to be a bit like a baseball game in terms of time and action. I can enjoy watching a Test Match, ideally at a pub where you're watching it while socializing. And only watching part of the whole match. Sitting in the stands for 28 hours over a long-weekend would not work for me.

What if they automatically put an extra batsman on the pitch after the first 9 hours?

That’s actually secondary, however. The primary reason I doubt we’re going to see that smoking gun is that it’s hard to see why it would be in Russia’s interest to loop the Trump campaign in on their interference campaign.

Funny to see that Sanchez never considers that one possibility why we're not going to see a smoking gun is because there was... no collusion. He sort of concedes that in the portion I partially quoted just above, but he doesn't come right out and say it. Instead he makes the bizarre case that Trump did something improper for taking advantage of things that fell into his lap such as the Wikileaks emails. As if Hillary didn't try to make hay with things that fell into her lap such as Trump's leaked tax return.

"Trump and Russia would have colluded but the parties didn't need to!" is a desperate argument.

That’s actually secondary, however. The primary reason I doubt we’re going to see that smoking gun is that it’s hard to see why it would be in Russia’s interest to loop the Trump campaign in on their interference campaign.

LOL. Yes, which is yet another reason that there was no "collusion."

So it wasn't in Russia's interest to "loop the Trump campaign" in, and there's no evidence of any collusion. To then conclude merely that "we are unlikely to see any smoking gun evidence," as opposed to the correct conclusion that the theory makes no sense and there's no evidence at all for it is pure hacketry. We're likely to continue not seeing not only "smoking gun" evidence, but no evidence.

This may be corrupt, and impeachmentworthy, but it isn't necessarily criminal. (I just want to edit my post to emphasize this point: Congress does not need -- despite Ray's desperate attempts to claim otherwise -- to establish the elements of a specific statutory offense in order to impeach.)

Yeah, what better for a divided America than an impeachment not based on high crimes and misdemeanors, but instead a bunch of half-baked modern lefty theories and paranoia buffeted up by illegal intelligence leaks and fake news? I for one can think of nothing better for the country than going forward with such an unprecedented thing.

Yeah, what better for a divided America than an impeachment not based on high crimes and misdemeanors, but instead a bunch of half-baked modern lefty theories and paranoia buffeted up by illegal intelligence leaks and fake news? I for one can think of nothing better for the country than going forward with such an unprecedented thing.

Translated to non-Trumpkin:

It's totes cool to fire the FBI Director because he wasn't giving the most politically expedient and cult-approved answers so long as he was doing so in the course of an investigation that is unlikely to deliver the biggest and worst possible bombshell.

What if they automatically put an extra batsman on the pitch after the first 9 hours?

Madness!

They do have fielding restrictions (which I don't really understand).

The best I can gather is in certain versions of cricket (ie. during One-Day-Internationals, but not during Test Matches) at certain points in the match there are rules on where the fielders can stand. I think there is a limit on the number of guys you can have playing deep. The logic being, in order to speed up the game you want to give the batsmen lots of green to aim big hits at.

It does seem to be one of the massive differences between baseball and cricket. There are multiple versions of the game played at the highest level. The AL/NL has the DH split, but a Test Match and a Twenty-Twenty Match are pretty different games, calling for very different strategies. I don't know my cricket history, but I'm guessing this diversity evolved out of Test Matches being a bit too long and drawn out to draw in the crowds.

It's totes cool to fire the FBI Director because he wasn't giving the most politically expedient and cult-approved answers so long as he was doing so in the course of an investigation that is unlikely to deliver the biggest and worst possible bombshell.

It's totes cool to fire an FBI Director who was under an ethical cloud and doing a poor job, as acknowledged by a bipartisan group of senior observers.

You and yours simply haven't yet come to terms with the fact that it's Donald F. Trump that possesses the firing power, and that's all that's going on here. You've even sunk so such depths of derangement that the notion that hiring an international law firm that had won some award in Russia was a "dot" that needed to be "connected."

Yeah, what better for a divided America than an impeachment not based on high crimes and misdemeanors, but instead a bunch of half-baked modern lefty theories and paranoia buffeted up by illegal intelligence leaks and fake news? I for one can think of nothing better for the country than going forward with such an unprecedented thing.

The English did exactly that in the impeachment of the Earl of Strafford in March/April 1641. Sure, perhaps a little unjust, but one guy's head was a small price to pay for the resulting political stability!

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Without knowing how that 30% minority breaks down between "less than half" and "don't know", one cannot make any kind of argument what it means. It could be 29% for less than half, and 1% for I don't know, and that means something quite different from 15% less than half and 15% don't know. So, try to do better. The sun is shining, thus it's hot today is a kindergarten argument. Or a Republican Congressman's. Take your pick.

Most scientists, rather than lie or claim something they can't prove (unlike our POTUS) will rather cheerfully (they are scientists after all) conclude "I don't know". They do this, even when they are well informed and probably pretty sure, but not like scientifically, 100% (or close) sure. Our local glorified weatherman, Cliff Mass at U-Dub, is famous for basically saying "we know the earth is warming, but we can't prove most of it is due to man". In this way he's a typical scientist, bending over backwards to be non-political, even when if you asked him in a frank moment after a few drinks I'm almost certain he'd say "yea, the earth is warming, and we are probably driving it".

The problem with most scientists is that they are convinced everybody thinks like them and is as open minded and non political. They are naive that way.

Funny to see that Sanchez never considers that one possibility why we're not going to see a smoking gun is because there was... no collusion.

So, honest question, Ray. Everything else aside, do you understand how people read you making every single excuse in the book for Trump and compare that to your completely opposite behavior re: Clinton and call you a hypocrite?

One byproduct of the USAToday-style formatting of today's papers is the shortening of headlines. I can't say that I follow newspapers around the country with any great consistency, but other than the Times, I can't think of a single other paper that regularly uses compound sentences for headlines, such as "Macron Is Inaugurated as France's President, and He's Not Wasting Any Time". Do you know of any others?

Not offhand. That's why god made subheds (though I'm not sure how widespread those are anymore ... I do use them for our main stories here at work).

So, honest question, Ray. Everything else aside, do you understand how people read you making every single excuse in the book for Trump and compare that to your completely opposite behavior re: Clinton and call you a hypocrite?

I consider the nutty left's rationalization for their realization that there's going to be no "smoking gun" of collusion to potentially be a break in the derangement fever, so I'm going to stay optimistic.

Feel like this is heading towards Trump admitting in a fit of pique that he colluded with Russia and 90% of Republicans saying it's not a big deal.

I thought he already had his Code Red moment when he admitted that he fired Comey because he was annoyed with the RussiaRussia investigation. (Which was always my leading theory, by the way. I posted last week before the fact my guess that Trump fired Comey because Trump knew that he didn't collude with Russia and yet Comey was giving legitimacy to this retarded investigation anyway.)

The White House and their enablers in Congress are doing everything possible to throw monkey wrenches into the investigation, and they are counting on useful idiots like ray and Sugar Buns to endlessly repeat that if they haven't found anything by now, they never will. That this is nothing but a witch hunt.

There's never a smoking gun until there is. And until the president stops acting like the most guilty man in the world (I don't always obstruct justice, but when I do...OK, I always obstruct justice), I'll continue to believe there is one.

Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
(2) cause or induce any person to—
(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;
(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;
(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or
(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or
(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

There isn't a single element of this statute that a president firing an FBI director effectively for cause meets. Trump didn't intimidate, threaten, or corruptly persuade anyone to do anything, much less any of the list of prohibited things. He fired the FBI director, leaving indefinitely in place an FBI director with significant ties to the Clintons.

I don't know my cricket history, but I'm guessing this diversity evolved out of Test Matches being a bit too long and drawn out to draw in the crowds.

That's my understanding - that and T20 being in a lot of ways a "made for television" event.

I think my preference is for One-Day Internationals, which are 50 overs per side. It's a happy medium between Test Matches, which encourage teams to never take any risks, and T20, which is basically a Home Run Derby sans Chris Berman.

Trump maintained for at least four years that he was on the Birther side. Now, either that is incredibly dumb, intellectually lazy, or supremely cynical. He either didn't know or didn't care enough to want to know. Viewing Obama or Hillary, what bottom-feeding belief corresponds to Trump as to that? And that's just one thing.

I thought he already had his Code Red moment when he admitted that he fired Comey because he was annoyed with the RussiaRussia investigation. (Which was always my leading theory, by the way. I posted last week before the fact my guess that Trump fired Comey because Trump knew that he didn't collude with Russia and yet Comey was giving legitimacy to this retarded investigation anyway.)

Even that motive would be perfectly justifiable, and I agree that it's part of it. As I wrote last week, there are actually four components of the Russia investigation, properly understood. If the FBI director is paying disproportionate attention to one or two of the four, to the others' detriment, or providing a misleading public impression about the relative importance of the four, or commenting on some of the four but not others, leaving a misleading impression, the president has the prerogative to bring in another director who won't do that -- particularly given all the other components of Comey's poor performance.

There's never a smoking gun until there is. And until the president stops acting like the most guilty man in the world (I don't always obstruct justice, but when I do...OK, I always obstruct justice), I'll continue to believe there is one.

And the rest of us who actually pay attention have no obligation to flatter those kind of partisan devotions.

I thought he already had his Code Red moment when he admitted that he fired Comey because he was annoyed with the RussiaRussia investigation. (Which was always my leading theory, by the way. I posted last week before the fact my guess that Trump fired Comey because Trump knew that he didn't collude with Russia and yet Comey was giving legitimacy to this retarded investigation anyway.)

And this is OK?

Setting aside for a moment that the law that led to his appointment obviously meant he couldn't fire Starr -- had he been able to, Bill Clinton firing Ken Starr because there was no "there", there i/r/t Whitewater would have been fine?

I posted last week before the fact my guess that Trump fired Comey because Trump knew that he didn't collude with Russia and yet Comey was giving legitimacy to this retarded investigation anyway.

Does anyone else just read this and laugh? I mean, the things Trumpians ascribe to Trump are just mind blowing. It's like some bizarro Hanlon's razor where you never put anything crazy and dumb down he does to malice or incompetence but rather 7D chess.

Setting aside for a moment that the law that led to his appointment obviously meant he couldn't fire Starr -- had he been able to, Bill Clinton firing Ken Starr because there was no "there", there i/r/t Whitewater would have been fine?

The difference is that Trump isn't under investigation. Comey told both Trump and at least two senators exactly that. In your Miserlou-esque hopes and dreams, you and yours keep inventing an investigation that doesn't actually exist.

The difference is that Trump isn't under investigation. Comey told both Trump and at least two senators exactly that.

The proof, of course, being the letter firing him that claims Comey said this (three times!!!) --- coupled with the Lester Holt interview answer where Trump really has nothing to do with the "Trump campaign".

Bill Clinton has got to be kicking himself.... I didn't get a blowjob -- my penis did!

Does anyone else just read this and laugh? I mean, the things Trumpians ascribe to Trump are just mind blowing. It's like some bizarro Hanlon's razor where you never put anything crazy and dumb down he does to malice or incompetence but rather 7D chess.

Well, it's par for the course. Notice that SBB insists both that Trump isn't and wasn't under investigation, and that the FBI put too many resources into investigating Trump, thereby justifying Comey's firing, over the course of about three posts. If you're a cheerleader for Team Trump, facts and logic aren't your friend.

If you're a cheerleader for Team Trump, facts and logic aren't your friend.

The opposite. If you're a cheerleader for Team Trump, facts and logic are entirely on your side. The anti-Trump loons have no facts and no logic on their side. They say things like hiring an international law firm that won an award in Russia is a "dot" to be "connected" about ... well, there's such a dearth of facts and logic that there really isn't an "about."

Congress does not need -- despite Ray's desperate attempts to claim otherwise -- to establish the elements of a specific statutory offense in order to impeach.)

That may be correct, assuming impeachment for whatever reason is unreviewable in the courts. However, the Constitution lists "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as grounds for impeachment. Impeaching a government official, especially the President, for other reasons would be a notable departure from the consistent past practice, and unlikely to be successful or popular. Policy differences, poor policy implementation, or personnel decisions are not grounds for impeachment.

The argument that firing Comey is itself an impeachable offense is exceeding weak. You have to contend that even if a completely above board investigation eventually finds Trump did nothing improper, removing Comey while the investigation was pending is grounds for impeachment. Not likely that anyone not already afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome would go down that path.

Actually, I completely agree with SBB - Trump is perfectly fine with firing Comey. Within his duties, doesn't need a reason, all fine and good. Stipulated, please don't keep bringing that up like we're remedial speakers of English. It's not the isolated act of removing an underling that has caused the uproar.

It's the surrounding hoopla (fostered either by nine-dimensional chess, or incompetence, depending on your politics) with the changing story that gets the mills churning. Trump asking whether he's under investigation, and the "tapes" tweet, could certainly begin to swerve into "intent to influence any person in an official proceeding" - and there "any person" includes not just Comey, but McCabe and/or his successor(s). *IF* the loyalty oath thing is true - and we have no hard evidence that it is, but *IF* it is - then I would think that crosses a legal line. But then like many others here, I'm no climatologist.

I said long before any of this that I wouldn't have too big an issue with the impeachment power becoming the equivalent of a supermajority no-confidence vote in the president, given things like Obama's executive power grabs. I still don't. If the FBI director firing is so grave to Congress that a big majority is willing to fire the president (*) over it, so be it. I don't support the firing being justified with fake news and lies and nonsense, however.

(*) And put an actual rightist in the office, another thing modern liberals in their derangement aren't realizing.

They say things like hiring an international law firm that won an award in Russia is a "dot" to be "connected" about ... well, there's such a dearth of facts and logic that there really isn't an "about."

Well it's not like Trump's Secretary of State won the Russia Order of Friendship either. I mean, not even Checkov would lay it on this thick.

I think that Test Matches are things most people follow in the background: the radio going while they're doing other things, a few overs here and there if they're near a TV set. I am sure there are quite a few fans who have to see absolutely every ball, but for many the appeal of Test cricket is that it's part of the texture of the rest of one's life. Baseball can be like that too at times, and if games get any slower it will have to be …

The argument that firing Comey is itself an impeachable offense is exceeding weak. You have to contend that even if a completely above board investigation eventually finds Trump did nothing improper, removing Comey while the investigation was pending is grounds for impeachment. Not likely that anyone not already afflicted with Trump Derangement Syndrome would go down that path.

But a President lying about a blowjob, that's a threat to the Republic that has to be addressed.

Republicans have no standing, none whatsoever, to make any claim about what might be frivolous grounds for impeachment.

That may be correct, assuming impeachment for whatever reason is unreviewable in the courts. However, the Constitution lists "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as grounds for impeachment.

We have precedent set. If you harass a sitting POTUS long enough to generate anything a majority of the House will squint at and call a "high crime or misdemeanor," impeach away.

They say things like hiring an international law firm that won an award in Russia is a "dot" to be "connected" about

SBB, I don't think anyone here is seriously connecting that dot, there. The OP said it was an "amusing" coincidence, as I recall. To keep refuting unrelated bullet points by invoking this argument is lazy and nonresponsive.

Miserlou has kind of Code Redded the usual suspects here. Against all evidence developed in a year-long investigation, he will continue to believe there is an undiscovered smoking gun showing Trump's collusion with Russia ... and Trump should be impeached as revenge for the Clintons. Bill was impeached over a blowjob; Hillary had the 2016 election stolen from her by Trump's collusion with Russia.

You can rest assured millions of leftists share these beliefs and books will be still written with these theses 50 and 75 years from now. These are the modern-day equivalents of things like the decades-long defense of Alger Hiss. Non-leftists sitting in any way, shape, or form in judgment of leftists is simply anathema to leftists. They can not bear it.

SBB, I don't think anyone here is seriously connecting that dot, there. The OP said it was an "amusing" coincidence, as I recall. To keep refuting unrelated bullet points by invoking this argument is lazy and nonresponsive.

Actually, I said "hilarious".

I even went on to frame it in a Frasier episode scene for those that only speak Frasier humor.

A President who directly attacks a co-equal branch of government, through criminal activity, is very much a threat to the Republic that has to be addressed.

Well, Trump wasn't President when he went after Curio, so he's safe there. Does calling Robart a "so-called judge" constitute a direct attack? Or show "intent to influence any person in an official proceeding"?

Miserlou has kind of Code Redded the usual suspects here. Against all evidence developed in a year-long investigation, he will continue to believe there is an undiscovered smoking gun showing collusion ... and Trump should be impeached as revenge for the Clintons. You can rest assured millions of leftists share these beliefs.

Did Miserlou specifically point to MLB's "Russian activities" as part of the Code Red? If not, refuting his *other* Code Red arguments by bringing up MLB is lazy, nonresponsive, *and* illiterate.

ETA: Seriously - you have an excellent point about *some* "loony left" arguments. But invoking random examples of those, however excellent, as a rebuttal of unrelated topics has long become tiresome.

When Strafford was impeached for "high misdemeanours", the term was quite consciously vague (the priority was to get Strafford locked up - the Commons didn't actually get around to figuring out what specifically they were going to charge the guy with until later).

In his defence Strafford famously said that 1000 misdemeanours could not make one felony (though here he was defending himself against the charge of treason, you could be impeached for less).

But are "high misdemeanors" defined with any precision in the US system? My understanding from 17th century England is that "high misdemeanour" was a deliberately vague legal category, more politically defined as "stuff this public official did that have caused us to lose trust in him" more than legally defined as "things that are crimes in any other context".

There isn't a single element of this statute that a president firing an FBI director effectively for cause meets. Trump didn't intimidate, threaten, or corruptly persuade anyone to do anything, much less any of the list of prohibited things.

I'm obviously biased, but most baseball positions are fairly self-explanatory (aside from shortstop). But if someone asks me if I'd prefer playing "fly slip" or "silly mid on" I'm not sure where to start deciphering that.

But are "high misdemeanors" defined with any precision in the US system?

My understanding is "no". Technically, a President can be impeached for anything for which a majority of the House of Representatives considers "impeachable". Note, also, technically, "impeached" is essentially synonymous with "indicted", not convicted, and impeaching a President (which has happened twice in U.S. history) doesn't actually remove the President from office. It sets up a trial in the Senate, which requires a 2/3 vote for conviction (which has never happened in U.S. history - Andrew Johnson was acquitted by one vote; Richard Nixon resigned before he was even impeached by the House; there was, essentially, never any chance that Bill Clinton would be convicted and removed from office).

Against all evidence developed in a year-long investigation, he will continue to believe there is an undiscovered smoking gun showing Trump's collusion with Russia ... and Trump should be impeached as revenge for the Clintons. Bill was impeached over a blowjob; Hillary had the 2016 election stolen from her by Trump's collusion with Russia.

Actually, I said none of that. Ok, the Bill Clinton thing is a fair cop.

I never said, nor implied there would be a smoking gun showing Trump's collusion with Russia, just that there would be a smoking gun showing something. Best case for Trump is a smoking gun showing he is clinically paranoid. He is clearly acting like someone with something to hide. Whether that something is real, or just a figment of his imagination, I have no idea.

I never said nor implied trump should be impeached as revenge for Bill Clinton

Well, it's par for the course. Notice that SBB insists both that Trump isn't and wasn't under investigation, and that the FBI put too many resources into investigating Trump, thereby justifying Comey's firing, over the course of about three posts. If you're a cheerleader for Team Trump, facts and logic aren't your friend.

SBB is a cheerleader for Trump, to be sure, but that's purely because he's a troll. It's the latter reason why facts and logic aren't his friend. Well, that plus the fact that he's just really bad at both.

Gerald Ford: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." I don't know that there's any explicit formal definition anywhere. The precedents, mostly involving judges (and there aren't many of those) seem to involve debate over whether the crimes and misdemeanors had to be indictable legal crimes, and the Presidents impeached (plus Nixon) were accused of violating specific laws; so clearly just being a gigantic ####up hasn't been considered a "high misdemeanor."

Note, also, technically, "impeached" is essentially synonymous with "indicted", not convicted, and impeaching a President (which has happened twice in U.S. history) doesn't actually remove the President from office.

Yeah, this comes up in the 17th century as well in that some of the most famous impeachments (Buckingham, Strafford, Laud) didn't end in convictions. Charles I dissolved parliament before a decision could be reached in the Buckingham trial, and the Commons gave up in both Strafford and Laud's cases when it looked like they might not get a conviction. So instead they just passed a bill saying the were guilty.

EDIT:
The form it took in the 17th century was that the House of Commons would put together a group to act as prosecutor and the trial would take place with the House of Lords sitting as judges. Which sounds pretty similar.

And asked if they prefer Congress or an independent commission or special prosecutor to investigate Russia's involvement, just 15 percent pick Congress, while 78 percent support an independent commission or special prosecutor.

Well at least Trump has his popular legislative agenda to keep him going ...

By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans say the health care legislation that was recently passed by the House and supported by President Donald Trump is a bad idea instead of a good idea, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

By contrast, just 23 percent call the legislation a good idea, including 18 percent who "strongly" say that.

That 25-point gap between good idea and bad idea is larger than the NBC/WSJ poll ever found for Barack Obama's health-care plan. Back in December of 2013, following problems with the rollout of the HealthCare.Gov website, 50 percent had said the Obama plan was a bad idea, versus 34 percent who said it was a good idea.

This past February, however, 43 percent of Americans called the Obama plan a good idea, while 41 percent said it was bad.

That may be correct, assuming impeachment for whatever reason is unreviewable in the courts. However, the Constitution lists "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" as grounds for impeachment. Impeaching a government official, especially the President, for other reasons would be a notable departure from the consistent past practice, and unlikely to be successful or popular. Policy differences, poor policy implementation, or personnel decisions are not grounds for impeachment.

I wasn't making the argument that Congress can impeach him because he wore the wrong color tie; as a de facto matter, that's true, but it would obviously be inappropriate. I'm saying, rather, that "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" need not be coterminous with the federal criminal code. Of course, to the extent his conduct violates a particular statute, that would be relevant to impeachment. But it's not a criminal prosecution, and so they just need to decide that what he did was criminal, not Criminal.

SBB is a cheerleader for Trump, to be sure, but that's purely because he's a troll

I dunno - I strongly get the impression SBB would genuinely prefer a strongman-type government than a real democracy - something along the lines of what happens in Russia these days. It's another part of what makes actually reading the whole situation tough - sure, Trump praises Putin, Russia, but Russia is basically what he wants America to be, with him as Putin, so the praise may well be genuine. And really, Russia is a pretty close approximation to the Republican vision for America, so it's not surprising a lot of people are happy to go along for the ride.

Of course, it's true that the best trolling must contain elements of truth - it's too hard to entirely fake your views.

The OP said it was an "amusing" coincidence, as I recall.
Actually, I said "hilarious".
Mea maxima culpa. ;)

That's OK -- because to be honest, when I posted it -- it was simply amusing and hadn't yet reached the level of hilarity. You have to remember that at the time, we were in the midst of the great cockholster debate --- and this was also while the Trumpkins were still sticking to the "perfectly routine review by the Deputy AG and POTUS was simply acting upon the recommendation".

Donald Trump is to the leftists of today what Whittaker Chambers was to the leftists of the immediate post-war era. Which is to say, a disheveled non-leftist, of strange bearing and comportment, who didn't check all the resume-building boxes they so adore and who haven't bought into mainstream leftyism. Leftists simply can't bear those kind of people exercising any kind of judgment or power over them, which is why leftists are going so hard after Trump and why they spent decades defending a guy who was an actual spy for the Soviet Union.

I dunno - I strongly get the impression SBB would genuinely prefer a strongman-type government than a real democracy - something along the lines of what happens in Russia these days.

Right ... which is why I've written a bunch of posts criticizing Obama's executive power grabs in re things like drone killings of Americans. And repeated today that Congress should expand the impeachment power.

But keep up the speculations; they remain a source of great entertainment.

To zeroeth order, it's pretty true. You harp on Sweden because Sweden is a pretty close approximation to the Democratic vision for America. (One can quibble that in neither case I've really picked the closest, but they're both close).

Donald Trump is to the leftists of today what Whittaker Chambers was to the leftists of the immediate post-war era. Which is to say, a disheveled non-leftist, of strange bearing and comportment, who didn't check all the resume-building boxes they so adore and who haven't bought into mainstream leftyism. Leftists simply can't bear those kind of people exercising any kind of judgment or power over leftists, which is why leftists are going so hard after Trump and why they spent decades defending a guy who was an actual spy for the Soviet Union.

This seems more like a technocratic critique rather than an exclusively leftist one. I think there is an inertia in systems preparing and educating people for leadership. We all want someone in charge who knows what they're doing - whether that has been demonstrated (depending on context) by a career of serving in public office, education at the "right" schools, or membership in a landed aristocracy that has groomed you for leadership from birth.

I think that inertia can be overwhelmed when a critical mass of the population loses trust in the system, and so turns to an outsider.

I dunno - I strongly get the impression SBB would genuinely prefer a strongman-type government than a real democracy - something along the lines of what happens in Russia these days.

One of the most bizarre features of the Alt-Right is feeling of "brotherhood" with the Russians, because, well, they are Caucasian, I guess. When SBB rambles about how "low trust" our society has become what he's really digging at is wouldn't it be nice to ethnically cleanse like Russia does with its minority groups?

I'm saying, rather, that "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" need not be coterminous with the federal criminal code. Of course, to the extent his conduct violates a particular statute, that would be relevant to impeachment. But it's not a criminal prosecution, and so they just need to decide that what he did was criminal, not Criminal.

Given the current broad reach of the federal criminal code, it would be exceedingly difficult to find an impeachable offense that would pass muster with Congress and the American people, but would not also be a violation of Federal Law. A claim of "colluding with Russia" merely based on the fact that both Trump and the Russia government (and interests) were critical of and mocked Hillary Clinton isn't going to fly.